this is a discussion within the NFL Community Forum; We've seen the L.A. Raiders before, but the L.A. Chargers? And what about the Rams? Seems like they're preparing to move to L.A. as well ... Rams ending popular St. Louis fan events, promotions - SBNation.com ... can the City ...

AFC West rivals, the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, both frustrated with their home-city stadium situations, have decided to join forces on a Los Angeles stadium bid in case things don't work out in their current digs, according to an incredible report from the Los Angeles Times' Sam Farmer.

The Chargers and Raiders are working together to develop a proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles-area venue and plan to immediately seek a ballot initiative to get the voter support needed for it to be built.

The two teams issued a joint statement to The Times:

We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises. ...

Like all big plans, looks like there'll be problems ... or it's just a ploy for SD/OAK to secure public funding for new stadiums, . IDK, I'd like to see the Rams get back there.

Originally Posted by Cork Gaines, Business Insider

Los Angeles stadium proposal for the Chargers and the Raiders has one big problem for the rest of the NFL

The San Diego Chargers could soon be moving north to Los Angeles. The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders shocked the sports world by presenting a joint proposal to build a new stadium in Carson, California. The proposal staked their claim as the leaders in the race to return the NFL to Los Angeles, a race that also includes the St. Louis Rams.

The proposal presumably gives the Chargers and the Raiders a big advantage over the Rams because the assumption is that the NFL wants two teams in LA and is unlikely to approve the move of three teams. At the same time, the two-team proposal has a huge problem for the rest of the league that could derail it ...

This could be a bluff to gain leverage. I hate to see any city lose it's team, but, if either San Diego or Oakland decide that they don't want to bankrupt themselves over this, I'll be hard pressed to blame them.

Oh, and 2 teams in a city that really doesn't care about pro football? Nice.

This could be a bluff to gain leverage. I hate to see any city lose it's team, but, if either San Diego or Oakland decide that they don't want to bankrupt themselves over this, I'll be hard pressed to blame them.

Oh, and 2 teams in a city that really doesn't care about pro football? Nice.

Good point(s), it ain't like they've never had a team before.

Originally Posted by lee909

I dont think states should be using public money to back up rich business private companies anyway.

I agree in principle because after the tax breaks, et ... the job numbers "created" and the windfalls promised to the community somehow never measure up to claims made prior. There was an article though, that did sway me a bit on the concept of a city financing (or helping) sport venues ... I'm gonna' try and find it but it might take some time ... in the case of the Pontiac Silverdome, I believe Oakland County got left with a huge white elephant when the Lions moved back to Detroit proper ... just one example I can think of off the top of my head (why it shouldn't be done).

But moving forward it appears the Rams have the lead:

Originally Posted by WRAL Sports Fan

Council OKs Los Angeles-area stadium backed by Rams owner

INGLEWOOD, Calif.  The Inglewood City Council late Tuesday night approved plans to build a football stadium that includes St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke as a partner, clearing a path for a return to the Los Angeles area of the NFL for the first time in two decades.

The council approved the $2 billion plan with a 5-0 vote after a meeting with several hours of public comment and many vocal Rams fans wearing jerseys in attendance.

With only a small handful of dissenters, most of the commenters exuberantly supported the move ...

Cities paying for stadiums is such s strange concept over here. It happens sometimes in France but no way would happen here. Teams have to finance there own upgrades and new stadiums. The owners accept it but then the money in the Premier League and oligarchs and Arab oil men involved have that cash
My team is doing up 2 of the stands to increase to 61000 and its costing the best part of £200ml to do so with the owners(John Henry and FSG/NESV,owners of the Red Soxs) and paying up front with the money coming back from tbe club over a number of years

In the case of an owner like Mike Ilitch (Tigers/RedWings), I don't mind so much them giving him some tax breaks/funding for his stadiums/arenas because he does a lot of other stuff around the city and usually funds 50% of any project with his own money. They're debating funding for a new arena (RedWings) right now and it's running into some snags ... IDK, how can you spend money on a new arena (as a city/region) when you're infrastructure is falling apart? That's what I wonder sometimes, .

If a city os in good shape and has the money to do so i wouldn't have a issue with funding stadiums so long as the team has to stay there to make it worth while. Im sure the taxes on players salary and huge spending sprees,additional income from fans at games etc makes it worthwhile in the long term,BUT if a city is struggling it shouldnt be spending to help a private company

My team is doing up 2 of the stands to increase to 61000 and its costing the best part of £200ml to do so with the owners(John Henry and FSG/NESV,owners of the Red Soxs) and paying up front with the money coming back from tbe club over a number of years